I'd like to see a system where the states go in a rotating order. It's been NH & IA, next time maybe KY & OR, four years later maybe AZ & VT, and that's through spots 1 - 50. Of course, there are a million reasons why this wouldn't happen, but it would be fairer and more representative of the country as a whole.

From my POV shortening the primary season is the most important reform. But February and March are still too early.

From my POV shortening the primary season is the most important reform.

The shorter the season, the more control is in the hands of the media, the large organized donors and the party leaders. I don't mind the superdelegates, but they should not be allowed to publicly commit their vote to a candidate until after the primaries. They should be allowed to give an endorsement or campaign with a candidate, but ultimately their positions should be that barring a major development, I intend to use my vote as an endorsement of the people's choice.

While I like the idea of a rotating system, I also think it's important to have a geographic and demographic balance at the beginning, so I wouldn't go with the alphabet.

How about a law that makes it illegal to campaign until at least 18 months befor the election. I'll bet I could run for and win office with that being my only plaatform.

If they get rid of Donna Brazile I might even consider returning to the Dem Party.

The best and maybe only good argument for superdelegates is one I heard Kevin Advance:

These are lawmakers mostly, they are the ones who actively have to deal with the new president, have to stand with or support his pieces of legislation. They should get a voice in the process because it's their own political lives and they want someone they can work with.

So I'd say make the Supers ONLY nationally elected officials. That is, the Congress and the Senators that are Democrats are superdelegates but no one else.

I would MUCH rather have superdelegates, who after all are loyal members of my party by definition, have some kind of say in who my party selects to stand for election, when you also have a bunch of crazy greenies, calculating palinites, and people who choose to remain clueless about what their elected leaders are doing for interim four years. That's what you get with an open primary. Is it the optimum solution? No, probably not. But at least superdelegates are DEMOCRATS, and reasonably connected and knowledgable.

You think it's better for Ron Paul fanatics and Sarah Palin Teabaggers to have more say in who stands for election for the Democrats than people like Jerry Meek?

Gandalf. "No sir I am not campaigning! I am just visiting the Great State of Iowa!. or" Campaigning? Me? Sure if called upon I will serve this great country, if that is what the people want. But for now I am just helping my friends and colleagues build the Party by speaking at their fund-raisers." or "Of course I am not campaigning! It is just that there are very big issues facing this fine nation and I feel it is my duty to explain my position to the editorial boards of newspapers nationwide. Starting with Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada just being a coincidence."

Well you can see where I am going with this. At what point does being a camera hog on the Sunday morning circuit transition into 'campaigning'? Unenforceable rules are worse than no rules at all.
____________________
Danp. Same thing applies. Legally there is not much difference between a 'committment' and an 'endorsement'. If you consistently appear at candidate O's events but are otherwise scheduled when candidate C come to town or vice versa no amount of vocabulary slicing is going to make a difference. This kind of rule making just makes for less transparency and not more.
____________________
As to superdelegates generally, you have to remember they didn't come out of nowhere and were themselves a reform measure. Under the current system elected delegates don't really represent the people who elected them, they represent the political apparatus that put them on the electoral list which ultimately means whatever Senator or Governor has operational control over the State Party machine. Or maybe that control is split. But in any event it is pretty insulated from the average voter. Meaning that in any contest where the outcome is not settled on the first ballot you end up in the modern equivalent of the smoke-filled room. The addition of Superdelegates doesn't exactly totally democratize that process but it does add more seats at the table. For example with superdelegates in place the House Progressive Caucus can never be 100% marginalized. It can be split along other lines but never eliminated entirely.

Prior to superdelegates the typical state delegation was dominated by party workers and functionaries of the various interest groups. For example I am a fairly loyal union guy and am generally pretty sure the shop steward is working for me. But my local's VP? Well not such much. And the President of the District Council? Well in the last union I belonged to Rod has his focus upwards towards the International and not downwards to the Local. So while I support union teachers, and fire fighters, and office workers, and hotel housemaids, that doesn't mean I want my convention delegation hand selected by Gerald McEntee and Andy Stern. In practice I don't have much more control over Congressman Larsen, on the other hand I live 10 blocks from his District Office.

People who object to superdelegates because they are fundamentally non-democratic have I think not studied how convention delegates were in practice selected prior. That was not 'the voice of the people made flesh', far from it.

I don't know, Bruce Webb. Does the selection of a candidate for election by a political party have to be a "democratic" process? SHOULD it be a "democratic" process? I'm not convinced. The general election is the democratic process, not the way a political party selects its candidate. If greenies and indies don't like the Democrat, let them put forth their own candidate.

I am very glad to see I won't be the only one defending the idea of superdelegates. In most cases they are unnecessary -- but then so is having a VP succeeding to the Presidency naming a new VP. But...

Scenario (2008): John Edwards runs a stronger race against Hillary, while Obama decides to 'wait his turn.' Edwards wins a majority of the pledged delegates, but not a total majority because of the superdelegates.

THEN his affair comes out.

That is the situation for which Superdelegates were needed.

Or, Candidate gets the vast majority of delegates beforwe the convention, with maybe 10% of the delegates for a minor candidate. Candidtae dies between primaries and convention. Who settles it?

And for those who talk about the 'undemocratic nature' of giving a Representative an automatic seat, two things.

First, name ONE delegate -- other than yourself if you ran -- that you voted for in the last primary.

Second, imagine a Congressman running ahead in a competitive district, but then he has to run as a delegate. For some reason there is a small one-issue faction in that delegate district (not the Congressional District as a whole) that opposes the Representative. They defeat him as a delegate -- and the opponent starts running ads saying 'Even his own party doesn't support Rep. X.' (Not to mention the unnecessary, if small, expense of another campaign.)

(As for shortening the primary season, no. Candidtaes need time to make their cases, and it is such a major advantage for 'name recognition.' We complain about party influence, but shortening the season would give them more influence than the superdelegates currently do.)

Legally there is not much difference between a 'committment' and an 'endorsement'. - Bruce Webb

True. The problem is that throughout the Dem primaries, the news channels were treating these "committments" in a way that suggested a lead for Hillary. But as we also know, many of them switched sides towards the end, and more would have, had it been necessary, since the last thing these people wanted was to overthrow the will of the voters. By telling them they cannot "commit", CNN can't report a hundred and fifty delegate handicap for Hillary. In contrast an "endorsement" says "I prefer this candidate, and I encourage people to vote for her (or him), but I won't cancel your votes, short of a major development." And I think that is a significant difference.

James, you do realize that the fact that the 'greenies' as you derisively call people to your left, cost your party the last election they seriously contested?

Your remark seems designed to incite a response. It in no way makes any actual internal sense. I'm sure the right wing Democrats lover your 'on the other hand-ism' about 'greenies and palinites', but you just look liek a troll.

Prup, the big problem with what you say is that your hypothetical is an extremely unlikely one. In that scenario, why wouldn't Edward's political opponents until right after he was formally nominated? What would prevent a candidates political enemy from simply making up a dozen or so rmors and hoping that they stick? I remember a lot of hillary-types arguing that we needed super-delegates because of a certain 'whitey tape' meant that Obama had to be thrown out. You have to draw a line somewhere.

Ry7xDL

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

I bookmarked this link. Thank you for good job!

I want to say - thank you for this!

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

dsfgsdfg dfssdfgf fdsgsdfgsd